China

Chinese cyber-attacks

Hello, Unit 61398

AN AMERICAN information-security firm has identified a secretive Chinese military unit as the likely source of hacking attacks against more than a hundred companies around the world. In a report made public on Tuesday, the firm, Mandiant, based in Alexandria, Virginia, said it could now back up suspicions it first reported in more qualified form in 2010.

The firm had said then the Chinese government may have authorised the hacking activity it had traced to China, but that there was “no way to determine the extent” of official involvement. In its new report, Mandiant upgrades its assessment. “The details we have analysed during hundreds of investigations convince us that the groups conducting these activities are based primarily in China and that the Chinese government is aware of them,” the report said.

China’s government has denied the allegations. Hong Lei, a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry, said on February 19th that China has itself been a victim of cyber-attacks, and that it enforces laws that ban such activity. “Groundless criticism is irresponsible and unprofessional, and it will not help to solve the problem," he said of the Mandiant report.

According to the report, a Shanghai-based unit of the People’s Liberation Army General Staff Department, known as Unit 61398, is staffed by hundreds and possibly thousands of people specially trained in network security, digital signal processing, covert communications and English linguistics. The unit’s 12-storey building (pictured above) has been equipped with special fibre-optic communications infrastructure “in the name of national defence”.

Mandiant said that since 2006, it has observed attacks from this unit against at least 141 companies spanning 20 major industries, including four of the seven strategic emerging industries that China has identified in its current five-year plan.

The New York Times, which hired Mandiant to investigate China-based cyber-attacks against its news operations, was the first to report on the firm’s findings. Mandiant concluded that the attacks against the newspaper had come from a different Chinese source.

In the case of the attacks described in the new report, Mandiant said it could not prove that the attacks came from within the military building it identified. But it concluded that this was the most plausible explanation for its findings. “Either they are coming from inside Unit 61398, or the people who run the most-controlled, most-monitored Internet networks in the world are clueless about thousands of people generating attacks from this one neighbourhood,” Kevin Mandia, the founder and chief executive of the company told the paper.

Same for the American consumer.
.
To paraphrase a commercial...
.
"What account number and passwords are on your smart phone?"
.
Remember, the Fed said they were hacked but pooh-poohed it.
Gotta keep that "confidence" up.
.
NPWFTL
Regard

I see no problem.
.
As long as China keeps loaning us money to buy their goods, the average American won't care.
.
The fact that US businesses are so ignorant and puts things on servers/sites that can be hacked is of no concern for the average
American.
.
All they are going to get from the average American is an account number and how much they owe.
.
When they demand to be paid is when the average American will care.
.
NPWFTL
Regards

No, the average American will not care when China demands to get paid. That is when the average Chinese will care. As has been said "When I owe you a hundred dollars it is my problem. When I owe you a million dollars it is your problem". Multiply the values by a million and it applies to loans between countries just as well.

It's not so much a demand to be paid as a refusal to extend further credit. That alone would be enough to put America in a world of hurt.
.
Then there is the option of using some of those debt instruments to buy American assets. Which will impact the Average American if they buy companies, and either start shutting down operations or just severely downsizing (while moving a lot of functions off-shore). If someone demands payment, but isn't in a position to really force you to pay, that's one thing. If they decline to continue to pay you, that becomes a whole new discussion.

OK, so they cease extending credit and instantly put themselves, the US, and the rest of the world into recession when the US can no longer purchase all the junk we need to be happy. Or they ask for hard assets in return for the credit and the US gov't steps in and states that it is not acceptable to have so much Chinese control over so many US assets. Option 3, the US finally accepts it has been living beyond it's means and just lets inflation work its magic thus paying off bonds issued at 3 to 6% annual interest with $ which are being depreciated at 10 to 15% per year. Now that is not a fun amount of inflation. But baby boomers like me have lived through a decade of that kind of inflation before. We survived, we weren't hungry or cold, we adapted.

China and the US find themselves walking on different ends of the same tightrope. Each doesn't like having the other the other guy on it. But jumping up and down to try to bounce the other guy off is just as likely to cause you to fall also.

Yeah, I remember surviving the early 70s inflation. I also remember my salary rising rapidly to (sort of) keep pace. Which won't exactly be an option -- since those of us old enough to remember will mostly be old enough to have retired . . . hence no salary to adjust.
.
No doubt there would be adjustments of some kind. But much slower and smaller than we saw last time around with high inflation.
.
I agree that trying to bounce the other guy off is foolish. But I doubt that our Congress has quite got a worldwide monopoly on fools. Which means that either side might decide to start something with no clue about where it would obviously lead.

Buy farmland now and then sell it when you're old - more people to feed and less farm land everyday. It's a way better investment than gold or energy or anything else. In the end, gold is just a pretty metal and you can always put on sweater in the winter. But you have to eat.

Correct.
.
It has everything to do with the words on the back of the envelopes which I send in to pay my utilities, etc.
.
They tout online banking as easy, safe, and secure.
.
Which leads us back to Big Data, and the Big Lie.http://www.economist.com/comment/1889253#comment-1889253
.
This is starting to feel like a Seinfeld episode, how it all circles back together.
.
NPWFTL
Regards

This is why we have the Fed printing money.
They can print and give the money to China when they cash in, and can print to do "QE to infinity and beyond!"
.
jouris,
We don't need the Chinese to buy our companies just to shut them down.
.
Our Wall Street guys can do that very well without the Chinese help, thank you.
.
NPWFTL
Regards

Online banking is easy. And it is safe and secure . . . especially if you don't have enough money in said bank to make it worth anybody's while to hack in and rip you off. (Things like your Social Security number may be in the file. But then, your bank already has that somewhere in a file that is on-line anyway.)
.
But I always do one thing the instant I go to log in to anywhere: check that the IRL at the top of the browser window starts https. Not just http, but https. It's far from foolproof. But a site that isn't willing to take even that minimal security precaution probably shouldn't be wasting my time with passwords anyway.

There is an important distinction between hacking into servers in another country for intelligence, and hacking into them to break things, or just hammer them (or use them to hammer others) in order to disrupt their function. The latter may, depending on circumstances, constitute cyber terrorism. To call the former terrorism, in itself, is really a stretch.

Almost all the people know that the largest hackers, FBI and the Pentagon,basing in U.S. are monitoring anything,online or offline, in the world through Google or other channels,not to mention your online accounts' passwords which is a piece of cake for them to crack.

As America moves to a "first to file" patent model shortly, the economic downside which will flow from its companies being hacked will increase very considerably.
.
This might be a very good reason for America to reverse its very unwise decision to move to first to file. First to file is great for law firms, but bad for inventors, and with hacking of major American companies, it will be very bad for them too.
.
If America cannot stop foreign hackers penetrating its IP-creating companies, it should immediately postpone, or undo its transition to first-to-file. America's companies could be looted of decades of R&D through the combination of foreign hacking and first-to-file.
.
Wake up America's congress. You have made yet another major error.

No real supririse here. The new law is, as you note, great for lawyers rather than inventors. And the ratio of lawyers to inventors in Congress (and, perhaps more to the point, on Congressional staffs) is how many to one?

You are correct. Now imagine how much damage America's lawyer-laden congress is about to inflict upon American industry. Imagine the billions if not trillions of dollars of damage which America's congress is about to cause American companies who have had their IP observed via hacking.
.
American IP passed on, by government-backed or private hackers, to foreign companies, can within a matter of weeks from today, instantly become the property of those foreign companies simply by their filing patents in America.
.
Some might have wondered if America's congress could ever find a way to cause more damage to America's economy than they did with the congressionally-created and actively enabled sub-prime crisis. Yes, they can!
.
Allowing first-to-file rights to foreign companies who have received American IP via hacking, may enable America's congress to greatly outdo the damage they caused via their wanton promotion, and failed regulation, of sub-prime lending.
.
Americans, you need to grab your congressmen by the lapels and wake them up to their duties to your country, which are supposed to come before their duties to help feather the nests of American law firms. It is easily observed that America's large law firms have all grown sizable IP practices in the last decade. Guess whose nests are being feathered with this insanely risky combination of failed hacking protection plus first-to-file? Those same large law firms who have begun to furiously monetize their new IP practices.
.
Disgusting.

Ability (and willingness, even if only thru ignorance) to cause damage to the nation. And not just on economic matters. It appears to be a desired core competency when recruiting candidates for Congress. (Which may be harsh in some cases. But seems to cover the majority pretty well.)

So many in America's congress are afflicted with shallow self-interest, as well as the fear of being de-elected if they don't respond to the demands of the most well-funded lobbyists.
.
But the biggest problem of America's congress is that so few of its members have ever really functioned in the real world where one's actions do cause consequences. Lawyers, under the American big-firm model, all get paid whether they win or lose on any matter, and they have endless opportunities to "explain" losing, be it in a litigation, lease or contract negotiation, or patent filing, as each loss is a "unique" situation which lends itself to endless rationalization by the attorney. (The only American lawyers who experience consequences are contingency fee attorneys, but they often avoid heavy investment, instead trying to manage a portfolio of potential low-effort settlements.) Ergo, most of these people are simply not accustomed to thinking about and honestly dealing with their own actions being connected to real consequences for others.
.
With their first to file madness, they are about to destroy vast amounts of American IP wealth, just to advance the narrow interests of law firms with IP practices.

How exactly do you suppose first to file is good for lawyers? The whole point is to remove controversy over who was first to invent, which can be vastly more contentious (and therefore open to litigation) than simply the date of an application.

Sure an inventor will have to know how to file for a patent or know a patent attorney, but the reduction in post facto litigation should make this a worth-while reform, particularly for small firms that cannot afford a protracted legal battle.

I really don't think that's true. Actually, I would suggest that the change to "first to file" will affect only those companies who do not file outside the US.

Indeed, the companies who *do* regularly file outside the US, which includes all of the major multinationals -- i.e. the ones whose IP would likely be targeted by these hacks -- have already been operating under de facto "first to file" for years, since this is the system used by the whole of the rest of the world.

LOL. The US undoubtedly has the largest hacking system ever. The Chinese are NOOBS when it comes to hacking. That's why the US often figures out as soon as they're hacked.

The country that invented the internet, has Silicon Valley, and the CIA, FBI, Pentagon, largest military budget will outhack any country any time. White hat hackers can generally make more money in the Bay area as their talents are always in demand.

Honestly, the US government is also lame at hacking too...the government, not the people. BUT if the US would stop prosecuting their best hackers to suicide (Aaron Swartz), they may truly reign supreme indeed!

As a civil libertarian of sorts, I have a lot of problems with the US Government. But I would trust the US democratic government with its legal institutes over a Non-democtatic Communist Chinese government with little or no accountability where individual generals can pursue personal agendas. The Chinese government is the real danger here, not the US.

Virtually every internet protocol and almost all operating systems and major programs are written in the US. The same goes for hardware, which while assembled in Asia, is designed almost entirely in America.
`
Does anyone really think the US government did not install backdoors at all? They needn't be malicious either, but surely if the unthinkable scenario of WWIII broke out, I would fully expect the US to have the ability to disable absurd amounts of infrastructure in the blink of an eye.
`
Hopefully we'll never find out though. And in today's world, America's enemies are more often found in caves and mud houses than anywhere necessitating cyberwarfare.

The original Internet Protocol was created in the United States. But a lot of the other common protocols were originally created elsewhere. And these days, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) which writes and revises the protocols includes volunteers from all over the world. In just the last 24 hours, on a single draft proposal before a single one of the IETF Working Groups, I have seen comments from both North and South America, from Europe, from Asia, from Africa, and I think even one from Australia. Perhaps you might be interested in checking a little into the IETF before speaking out about that.
.
As for operating systems, while the ancient (in computer terms) originals were mostly written in the US, all of the major ones currently are revised by people from all over the globe. If there are backdoors in there, it's not like they can be hidden from the people who are up to their elbows in the code. (Can you see a government backdoor of any kind inserted into Linux? It is to laugh!) And if the backdoor is known, it loses most of its value.
.
Which is not, of course, to say that they don't have varying levels of security holes which the producer didn't manage to find and fix. Nobody who gets the flood of security patches from Microsoft could believe that. But there is a difference between a hole left due to sloppy coding and inadequate testing, and one snuck in deliberately.

I also trust the US Government much more than the Chinese fascist state. That's like saying, "I like breathing clean air." It's obvious to non-nationalist Chinese.

Now regarding who is a danger is who isn't. Governments with too much power that can spy on their people at will are ALL dangers. Only the degree differs. China is several orders worse. That doesn't the US won't commit abuses against its people either.

Item 1 - this article will be one of the most commented within the next 48 hours once the 10 yuan army goes into action defending China against this unsubtantiated lie.

Item 2 - if we really want evidence to prove or disprove that China hacks or doesn't hack then do something similar to what the US did to Japan in WWII. In 1942 US intel, which was able to decode much of Japan's coded transmissions knew Japan was planning an attack and knew the timing, but couldn't be certain of where. This was because Japan used code words for the location which were then coded before transmission. So even when decoded all that you got was a code word which was meaningless. In other words the US could break the portion of the code which said "Imperial fleet to attack and invade AF at dawn August 20th" but no one knew what AF stood for. They suspected it was Midway Island, but needed to know. So the US sent out an innocuous uncoded message from Midway that one of their water desalinization units had failed. Later the US picked up a coded Japanese message that US base on AF may have low water supplies. So now the US knew AF was Midway.

So do something similar with misinformation to see just how prevalent China hacking is. For example, create a stream of emails, documents, etc. about some major false deals between US and UK companies and see if China reacts in a way which indicates it was acting on that information. Obviously it would have to be a complex scheme and require more than just one deal or activity. But it can be pulled off as the UK and US showed brilliantly in creating all kinds of radio traffic, paper trails, turned agents, etc. during WWII to dupe the Germans into believing the Allied invasion of Europe would be at Calais when in fact it was Normandy.

Expensive - yes. But less so than the value of information China is stealing if the accusations are true. And if it is true that the Chinese miliatry is doing all this hacking, then there we be an evidence trail which could be put up for the world to see to prove that China is engaged in cyber spying. Basically it would be as good as when the Soviets dragged in U2 pilot Gary Powers who'd been shot down over the USSR despite Eisenhower denying the US was flying spy missions over Soviet territory. At the very least, it would create a situation where if China is hacking, they would have to start second guessing about whether what they were finding was real or false information. And this alone would have a significant impact on the value to them of any stolen information.

Much as I could use the money, I think the end result would be to just turn the Chinese pay for comments scheme into a global industry. - But a free year of Economist online might be nice - in case the editors are listening.

I think the problem with this plan is that most of the hacking is directed at US corporations. So you'd need to have a massive effort on the part of the gov coordinating with corporate to send fake emails. And are corporates going to be happy with the gov monitoring all communication? Not saying it couldn't be done, but it would be difficult.

One of these chemical companies should leak a formula that creates an explosion you can see from far away. Like outer space. That would be pretty conclusive, and might get rid of the competition at the same time.

Then there was the ruse used by the British to convince the Germans that the D-Day landings would happen in the Pas de Calais, not on the Normandy beaches as actually planned.
.
They took the body of a recently-deceased airman, put "top secret" invasion plans into his briefcase, and chained it to his wrist, as one might with secret documents. He was supposed to be a courier shot down on his way back to England from a conference with the yanks in North Africa.
.
They dropped the corpse into the English Channel at a spot at which they hoped the tides would wash him onto the French coast.
.
Sure enough, the Germans found the corpse and swallowed the fake plans hook, line and sinker. The rest is history.
.
The dead pilot's wife was informed of this some years after the war, when it was clear that 'missing in action' meant that he was dead. She was pleased that her husband, even after death, had helped save hundreds of allied lives because the Germans had built defences in the wrong place.
.
The dead pilot's code name was 'Bob'.

The US operates a large military, including nuclear weapons, to affect its interests in the world. The Chinese use computers to affect destabilization of the US economy. There's no difference if you consider it all war.

The world needs to wake up and start calling China for what it is: a Fascist State.

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through ethnocentrism and indoctrination. Fascism advocates a state-controlled and regulated mixed economy; the principal economic goal of fascism is to achieve autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence, through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. It promotes regulated private enterprise and private property contingent whenever beneficial to the nation and state enterprise and state property whenever necessary to protect its interests.

I guess I'm being pedantic, but you plagiarized wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism. I guess I was thrown off by your usage of the word autarky, which you just don't see on the internet. Autarky in a nutshell is eliminating all foreign trade, the prototypical example being Albania under Hoxha. Pretty sure China isn't pursuing a policy of autarky. The point being, don't just copy your arguments from some other place on the internet. I don't disagree with you on the main thrust of your argument, but your post is emblematic of the many posts that don't really seek to contribute new ideas to the debate.

The world needs to wake up and start calling China for what it is: a Fascist State.
.
Who cares what they are or what you or I want to call them.
.
As long as consumers can get iPads, iPhones, etc. cheap.
That is what matters.
.
NPWFTL
Regards

I dont remember CPC ever try to export communism since mao died.
.
Btw, west has freer press but less free speech, compared to China.
.
FYI, in china it is government that controls public opinions, in west, it is rich-own media that controls public opinions.
..
In china, opinions disliked by CPC still get public attention, in west, opinions disliked by media never get public attention.
.
Enjoy.

You repeat the same stuff under every article about China, word by word. Your points do not add to the discussion in any of these cases. And anyhow, what are these discussion collumns if not a form of expressing free speech?

You dont give any truth, you give unsupported statements of opinion that can be found a dime a dozen on the internet.

You define nothing. First off define what constitutes a serious threat to the CPC.

We know what constitutes the CPC, its a political party and its high ranking members are a matter of public record.

What exactly constitutes your definition of 'powerful rich'? What grouping is this, who? How is this a legitimate grouping, what binds them? If you cant give anyone and provide evidence, you are giving mere rhetoric, you might as well start talking about the threat of the illuminati.

Next define what is a 'serious threat' to this undefined rich group.

Now provide evidence to back up both that they are considered a serious threat, and that actions are being taken by the government to eliminate this threat.

PS. The 'threat' must be perfectly legal otherwise. Murder and Theft are threats to anyone, not just the rich, and it is actually the government's duty to remove those sorts of threats from society whenever possible.

Full Show: Big Media’s Power Play
.
December 7, 2012
.
In 1983, 50 corporations controlled a majority of American media. Now that number is six. And Big Media may get even bigger, thanks to the FCC’s consideration of ending a rule preventing companies from owning a newspaper and radio and TV stations in the same city. Such a move — which they’ve tried in 2003 and 2007 as well –would give these massive media companies free rein to devour more of the competition, control the public message, and also limit diversity across the media landscape. Bernie Sanders, one of several Senators who have written FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski asking him to suspend the plan, discusses with Bill why Big Media is a threat to democracy, and what citizens can do to fight back.

You repeat the same stuff under every article about China, word by word.
************************************************************************
shhhhhhhhhhhh,
.
I am studying the technical how your "free" media convinces people.

How in the heck do you figure the the West has "less free speech" than in China?

Barak Obama is a communist heathen.
George W. Bush is a fascist neo-conservative pig.
Karl Rove is a dork whose never seen a naked woman in his life.
Nancy Peolosi.. is, well.. Nancy Pelosi.

See that?! See how it works?! I can say WHATEVER I WANT! About whoever I want! In whatever public forum I choose! And w/o fear of government sensors or a knock at my door (although granted, praising Allah may lead my email to be checked).

and yet you choose to believe this source....interesting...did you know that PBS is pretty much government funded...and believe or not, the US' government! Your reputation on this forum, like on every topic on China you have posted before, is pretty much nil. So approving of some articles and not approving others from the evil west media just kind of destroyed whatever credibility you had left and gave an insight to you age or education. Good luck and come back when you actually bring an argument to the table.

Your attempts at redirection are very clumsy. What's the matter, you don't like the topic of the actual article? You want to divert us to talk about something else because the article hits a sore spot?

The computer people know how to evaluate claims like the one in the article - by looking at the data. Unsubstantiated claims (either from security companies or from governments) get ignored very quickly. Loud-mouthed commenters with clumsy attempts at spin get ignored even faster.

Lol,
.
You know I dislike "free" media, and their reports dont have much credibility in my mind. Is there cyber attack? Possible. To what extent? Capable of collapsing usa? Well, if so, your system would be a piece of sh1t.
.
Do you remember the media war that tried to convince American people?

I understand that you dislike western "free" media. (There's a lot to dislike.)

But in this case, the source is not the western media, but a security company. Do you mind if we actually talk about the report that the article is based on, instead of having the conversation hijacked by your desire to insult the western media?

Its really not about the Western press, give it a break will you. If you are going to counter something at least criticize the Western governments for spying n their own citizens, or that that Chinese hackers have most likely hacked into Chinese government websites also. This free press thing is irrelevant and just shows you are definitely a person with low IQ or the lowest paid wumao.
.
I really think its annoying you spend so much time criticizing Western media, give me a break. You think the Western media is that powerful. They are not. In most countries outside the US, I would say 50-60% media is government owned, those rich people who control the media might own 20-30%, the rest is divided among many small owners. Is BBC a private company? CBC in Canada? ABC in Australia privately run? If the US governments wants to off a journalist or go after them, they can do it anytime. Grow up or go back on your meds.
.
You are in the belief that if you keep on with your silly tirades someone will believe. Well sorry, they just think you are an idiot.

Your English isn't bad, but it isn't good, either. It's very, very clearly foreign. This is the Analects, so people will assume you are Chinese. Please try to moderate your trolling; it tends to turn people against China.

"But hey, maybe because you threw some neat-o percentages in there someone will join in your belief that the US is always on the brink of being an evil police state and can do whatever it wants."

Hm, many in the US already thinks that way. An outlet like TE do not attract posters that think this way, but go to places like NPR, MSNBC, etc. and you will find people who believe that PIPA, SOPA, and NDAA are the beginning of the US's move away from its liberal foundations.

Universities in the US and other Western countries should also be very careful about admitting all these thousands of Chinese students just to make some cash. Confucius Institutes are especially dangerous. Chinese "agents" are ubiquitous.

Oooh which government are you talking about? I want to see their orbital extermination laser!
Though if this is actually a poorly veiled reference to the US and drones, could you take your fear mongering and conspiracies somewhere else? We're trying to have a rational discussion after all.

The Chinese Sovereign Wealth Fund is the largest in the world, worth nearly a Trillion dollars.
It holds hundreds of billions in US Treasury Bonds and is the largest foreign underwriter.
IT is no different for France,Italy and the UK....China is the Bank and Underwriter of the West.
At any moment at the push of a button, it can transfer billions, collapse the rate market, send banks into spasm, cause the stock markets to plummet, and collapse Western Economies.
Today Debt is a bigger target of weakness than the Maginot line prior to WWII.
_______________________________________
The ultimate weapon is finance.
We see this in the floundering Iranian economy under economic sanctions, as Iran blindly pursues obsolete nukes.
The Silent Economic Collapse of Iran may be a greater weapon than a regional tactical nuclear bomb could ever accomplish.
Unemployment rates exceed Spain. Food is too expensive. Gasoline is in shortage. Medicines are unaffordable.
Now depleted currency reserves are shrinking Iranian military forces, weapons export, modernization, and troop readiness.
_______________________________________
Western Debt may be a bigger source of weakness than terror, armies, nukes, or electronic warfare.
Economic Power trumps Military Power in the long term.

If they we're to do that it would destabilize the entire world economy. The crisis that would ensue would also engulf the Asian economies as much as the West's. With such a large shock to the would economic system, if the Chinese dump U.S. T-Bills, then it would depend upon the political orientation of countries; and in that case I predict the U.S. would be far better equipped to weather such crises than China.

It would be bad, of course. But everybody in New York City has back-up data centers hundreds of miles away. And all of the data to run the world financial system would not be damaged without hitting a lot of other places as well. Yes, a lot of people would be gone. But the system would shudder and then stagger forward, without the world coming to an end.
.
Of course, there would be other kinds of panics is a nuclear weapon got used, especially in New York City. But those would be some individuals reacting, not the system collapsing.

Let us hope you're right. I just wonder if all of the data back up centers would be capable of handling the sudden mass amount of dependency that would be placed on them. It would probably have to be like post 9-11 with the markets being shutdown for a long period of time to better control the process and to prevent widespread panic in all the still-standing financial centers.

Actually, let us hope that nukes never make it anywhere near NY. Go yankees :)

Before getting too carried away with the overweening hyperbole...the Maginot line was not quite a target of weakness, it was truly strong but incomplete, expensive and easily circumvented. Does that not apply to all highly expensive, highly focused security systems. Including a scryscraper in Shanghai. Most of us would rather be banker than borrower but what happens to China's sovereign wealth if the West defaults?

"Think of what a nuclear bomb in NYC would do to financial markets"
`
Or the Lehigh Valley (Delaware river) becomes the financial capital of the world, with hot failovers to alternate, back up data centers, powered by the nearby nuclear plant?
`
Land prices spike in Stroudsberg, Allentown and Easton, PA?

Well, a lot of them got some exercise during Hurricane Sandy. Which I only know because I have friends working for some of the companies involved. A couple of them got to spend a couple of weeks far from home, helping keep the lights on. And the rest were certainly aware that they were in their backup centers.
.
But as far as the markets themselves were concerned, I didn't even notice a blip. At most, there was a brief not buried in the inside pages of the business section. Nothing like what we'd see if there was a major meltdown happening.
.
That said, here's hoping nukes never go anywhere near anybody. Even the Yankees don't deserve that.

Yes, but "the bear" conjures up imagery of the Russians (think Moscow Olympics for the cute version; 1984 election commercials for the omnous version).
`
Although I bet this unit has generated business for Kaspersky labs....

It is nothing but an excuse for their own cyber force.
A commander once said their Hawk only attacks terrorists, however, years later they present us another report that at least hundreds of civilians also died.